The world has gone mad.....

4 Jun 2007

Quote by Mallock2006

What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?
Mike

This point is quite valid.......
Even more so when you take into account the new NHS brainchild......
Smokers will not be allowed to have treatment (scheduled operations such as hip replacements etc but not emergency procedures) unless they give up smoking...
Smoking is self inflicted as well.....

In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.)

4 Jun 2007

I'm sorry you feel victimised in anyway.. as I said MY opinion remains as it does. Yours is yours. It really isn't a personal thing to you (Neil) or Duncan its purely your thoughts on this that drives me nuts.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
i feel victimised do i? mike, i respect your entitlement to your own opinion? i happen to think it's wrong! don't try to put words in my mouth though?

The NHS is funded by hard working people who if given the choice would have absolutely denied this treatment.

i work mike. i pay taxes. i fund the NHS every week doing a job i can't stand. clearly, your statement is untrue, cos i happen to disagree with it?

I truly believe people are stupid and totally misguided in allowing drug addicts anything on the NHS like this without first proving they are capable of rational and able choices.

you've encapsulated my point perfectly? maybe they DID prove they're capable of rational and able choices? maybe that's why it was allowed? confused

neither of us know exactly just how capable and able and rational they were, do we? :? dunno

you may well be right we should treat all drug users with kit gloves and utter respect, divert resourses away from truly needy folk after all most of them are long past being able to put anything back again.. so sod em eh. We would not need all these so called professionals if we took a harder stance against stupid drugies

drug users shouldn't have access to the NHS? cos they're stupid druggies? how very magnanimous of you! think you'll find addiction is a recognised medical condition? as a recognised medical condition, it's funded. does it take funds away from other treatments? not really, no, cos other treatments are funded in their turn. they're budgetted for. so long as NICE gives 'em a :thumbup: anyways?

What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?

as are most medical conditions? hope you never need a new liver cos you had one beer too many? hope you never need a defibrillator when you have a heart attack thanks to one too many bacon sandwiches of a morning? lots, and lots, and lots of medical conditions treated by the NHS are self inflicted? you saying you'd deny treatment to people who did it to themselves? applies to just about everyone that lands in hospital? :?
neil x x x ;)

4 Jun 2007

Quote by neilinleeds
I'm sorry you feel victimised in anyway.. as I said MY opinion remains as it does. Yours is yours. It really isn't a personal thing to you (Neil) or Duncan its purely your thoughts on this that drives me nuts.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
i feel victimised do i? mike, i respect your entitlement to your own opinion? i happen to think it's wrong! don't try to put words in my mouth though?
Oh boy, you really do want this personal.. words in your mouth?? How exactly?? you can say what you like as can I.

The NHS is funded by hard working people who if given the choice would have absolutely denied this treatment.

Well maybe a vote would see what the majority of people would think to that..
i work mike. i pay taxes. i fund the NHS every week doing a job i can't stand. clearly, your statement is untrue, cos i happen to disagree with it?
Sorry I didn't realise you funded the whole thing yourself.. as before I wonder what the majority of people would think..

I truly believe people are stupid and totally misguided in allowing drug addicts anything on the NHS like this without first proving they are capable of rational and able choices.

you've encapsulated my point perfectly? maybe they DID prove they're capable of rational and able choices? maybe that's why it was allowed? confused

neither of us know exactly just how capable and able and rational they were, do we? :? dunno

Well its your choice to believe what you want to believe, they should/could have given up all drugs before treatment. Surely this would be best all round.. for them, the NHS, the children involved and of course the press who would not have had a leg to stand on eh. They didn't though did they, we know that as a fact!

you may well be right we should treat all drug users with kit gloves and utter respect, divert resourses away from truly needy folk after all most of them are long past being able to put anything back again.. so sod em eh. We would not need all these so called professionals if we took a harder stance against stupid drugies

drug users shouldn't have access to the NHS? cos they're stupid druggies? how very magnanimous of you! think you'll find addiction is a recognised medical condition? as a recognised medical condition, it's funded. does it take funds away from other treatments? not really, no, cos other treatments are funded in their turn. they're budgetted for. so long as NICE gives 'em a :thumbup: anyways?

What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?

as are most medical conditions? hope you never need a new liver cos you had one beer too many? hope you never need a defibrillator when you have a heart attack thanks to one too many bacon sandwiches of a morning? lots, and lots, and lots of medical conditions treated by the NHS are self inflicted? you saying you'd deny treatment to people who did it to themselves? applies to just about everyone that lands in hospital? :?
So a beer, a bacon sandwich and the like are Illegal class 'A' drugs are they.. sold by misery pedling people that are a cancer to the nation that cause misery to millions through crime we all end up paying for time and time over?? To class those things along the same lines says more than anything..Sorry Neil that one doesn't stand up.
neil x x x ;)
Your obviously aggrivated by my comments. I get a feeling you maybe know more than you let on..maybe not? I too know a little more than some maybe.. I have had a very close family member who has been an adict for 30 years.. Seen the damage, the upset the misery close up and personal. Nothing can help unless they help themselves.. He would be the very very first to admit that.
Mike

4 Jun 2007

Quote by st3v3

What gives them the rights all of a sudden? Its self inflicted is it not?
Mike

This point is quite valid.......
Even more so when you take into account the new NHS brainchild......
Smokers will not be allowed to have treatment (scheduled operations such as hip replacements etc but not emergency procedures) unless they give up smoking...
Smoking is self inflicted as well.....
Thanks Mallock.. The sad thing is although not a smoker I disagree with this policy to a degree. Smoking isn't illegal as such, in fact for years encouraged and the damage is over a long period of time. They (The government) play as big a part in the damage as anyone smoking.

In fact, when you compare tobacco tax revenues with the alleged cost of health treatment, the former far outweighs the latter. In the UK, for example, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. (Taxation revenue should of course be even higher - over £10 billion - but the Government has cleverly 'lost' £3 billion by over taxing tobacco and therefore encouraging smugglers and cross-Channel shoppers to buy the product abroad.)

This explains the double standards used by this and every prior government.. They would make the whole thing illegal if it were not for the revenue raised..

4 Jun 2007

Quote by mdr2000
So a beer {a bacon sandwich and the like left in to show rest of the quote} are Illegal class 'A' drugs are they.. sold by misery pedling people that are a cancer to the nation that cause misery to millions through crime we all end up paying for time and time over?? To class those things along the same lines says more than anything..Sorry Neil that one doesn't stand up

Sometime in the past.......and some bright spark will find the post......a post went into detail how much drinking costs this country. It spoke about the cost of hospital for long term users, A&E departments for bingers, police time, etc. Just makes me think.....if tobacco and alcohol were invented/discovered now......would they be class A drugs......because of the misery they cause.
Anyway, I think Neil can class them in the same lines. Ask the family who are destitute because of an alcoholic parent, ask the parents of a child killed by a hit and run driver, ask the parents of a child who has had their head kicked in on a Saturday night for a laugh, etc.
Each person here would have some experience on one substance misuse, whether legal or not. But none of them are worse than the others when looked at on an individual basis.
Dave_Notts

4 Jun 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
So a beer {a bacon sandwich and the like left in to show rest of the quote} are Illegal class 'A' drugs are they.. sold by misery pedling people that are a cancer to the nation that cause misery to millions through crime we all end up paying for time and time over?? To class those things along the same lines says more than anything..Sorry Neil that one doesn't stand up

Sometime in the past.......and some bright spark will find the post......a post went into detail how much drinking costs this country. It spoke about the cost of hospital for long term users, A&E departments for bingers, police time, etc. Just makes me think.....if tobacco and alcohol were invented/discovered now......would they be class A drugs......because of the misery they cause.
Anyway, I think Neil can class them in the same lines. Ask the family who are destitute because of an alcoholic parent, ask the parents of a child killed by a hit and run driver, ask the parents of a child who has had their head kicked in on a Saturday night for a laugh, etc.
Each person here would have some experience on one substance misuse, whether legal or not. But none of them are worse than the others when looked at on an individual basis.
Dave_Notts
I can agree with that for sure..
anything that is done to cause misery and is self inflicted is bad. My point far far before all that though was a simple one about the costing of such a treatment.. I doubt if an alchoholic or anyone who was self inficting something causing misery to themselves and others would/should be treated.. after all its even been said someone who smokes can't get it!
Its all debate for sure.. but the fact remains the people who were treated and given public money for such should in my personal view have given up all drugs before being offered treatment. If they had it would have said how serious they were and there could have been no press involvement..

4 Jun 2007

I have dipped in and out of this thread and to be honest i agree that these people should not have be given the treatment untill shown to be clean, but from an artistic point of view some of them most classic peices of art be that painting, sculpture or music would have never been produced without this stuff just another angle on the subject dunno

4 Jun 2007

Quote by flower411
I have dipped in and out of this thread and to be honest i agree that these people should not have be given the treatment untill shown to be clean, but from an artistic point of view some of them most classic peices of art be that painting, sculpture or music would have never been produced without this stuff just another angle on the subject

blimey wineman !!!
start a thread on art and bringing up kids !!
two seperate subjects my friend just thought it might add a different dimension to the thread thats all

4 Jun 2007

Someone put a thread up with a FOREST link. Inside that link was a section that stated
".......one of the founding principles of the NHS is that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their class, creed, financial status or any other factor, including lifestyle."
This is one of the founding principles. It eliminated the time when only those that could afford medical care recieved it. If we start messing about with the principles of the NHS then we will eventually erode it where it stops being a free service. The NHS may make decisions that may not sit well with certain people.....sometimes even me......but I have to except it as if they are eroded away then one day it may affect me or my loved ones.
Examples I have seen put about are people who are overweight, people who smoke, people who don't take enough exercise, people who drink. If they manage to get all these in as examples of how to exempt people from treatment then I am well and truely knackered lol

.
My thoughts on the whole subject......well I am on the fence at the moment as I can not comment on something where I have not seen all the issues surrounding the case. So on the individuals, I can't say a thing. In general though......never mind whether it is right or wrong (please bear in mind that I have had no dealing with drug abusers, only what I have seen off this thread)but which drug user is going to ask for IVF. Most, (it seems according to the posters on this thread), are only out for themselves and where their next fix will come from. This is far from the thought that the NHS will be inundated with requests from drug abusers for IVF treatment. So in my mind each individual request would be screened on its merits and not as a carte blanche ban or thumbs up to the drug abusers.
So after all that rambling, if the NHS has set the goal-posts then they shouldn't be moved. Whether we agree with the outcome or not. Because if we remove one persons rights.......it may be our rights removed next.
Dave_Notts

4 Jun 2007

Quote by flower411
Someone put a thread up with a FOREST link. Inside that link was a section that stated
".......one of the founding principles of the NHS is that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their class, creed, financial status or any other factor, including lifestyle."

what year was this ??
I think the NHS was set up in the 1940's......just after World War II
Dave_Notts

4 Jun 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
Someone put a thread up with a FOREST link. Inside that link was a section that stated
".......one of the founding principles of the NHS is that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of their class, creed, financial status or any other factor, including lifestyle."

what year was this ??
I think the NHS was set up in the 1940's......just after World War II
Dave_Notts
the PRINCIPLES are sound they just dont work in this age because of serial underfunding by all political parties that are only looking to last for 4 years at a time.

5 Jun 2007

Ohh well when I loged on today I said I wasent going to comment anymore on this BUT just a few little points I cant help.
Safety of the children ... ICSI treatment is about 7 years old it involves invasive injection of sperm into the egg via a needle. Some experts have discussed what long term effect this could have. Along with many rumours there is already some evidence that boys born from ICSI are 6x more prone certain types of early age cancer. In which case ban the whole lot, after all its unfair of us to see what happens if some may have to endure pain or death. We can do that but then we will never know what would happen, so we take the risk.
Give me a bottle of methadone/herroin/cannabis/insert/insert/insert/ let me pay 5 quid a bottle tax on it then I can stand in front of the world and as in other threads boldly state that I fund the NHS so any Illness I have or treatment I need I have paid for and should be able to recieve. Its sounds stupid but its not such a bad example. We know what smoking does it kills people and it effects babys in detremental ways which we already know far to well. Polution .. great one always used by smokers why all the fuss about fag smoke when people sit outside schools with 4x4's running? Great one that biggrin

how many babys are effected each year by methadone fumes ........ So maybe long after these kids are born and the effects of any methadone have worn off they will still be eating 2nd hand fag smoke and 4x4 exhaust fumes dunno

Its a tough life we all start it somewhere, just be thankful you did and no one screened you out.

5 Jun 2007

Quote by tweeky
Ohh well when I loged on today I said I wasent going to comment anymore on this BUT just a few little points I cant help.
Safety of the children ... ICSI treatment is about 7 years old it involves invasive injection of sperm into the egg via a needle. Some experts have discussed what long term effect this could have. Along with many rumours there is already some evidence that boys born from ICSI are 6x more prone certain types of early age cancer. In which case ban the whole lot, after all its unfair of us to see what happens if some may have to endure pain or death. We can do that but then we will never know what would happen, so we take the risk.
Give me a bottle of methadone/herroin/cannabis/insert/insert/insert/ let me pay 5 quid a bottle tax on it then I can stand in front of the world and as in other threads boldly state that I fund the NHS so any Illness I have or treatment I need I have paid for and should be able to recieve. Its sounds stupid but its not such a bad example. We know what smoking does it kills people and it effects babys in detremental ways which we already know far to well. Polution .. great one always used by smokers why all the fuss about fag smoke when people sit outside schools with 4x4's running? Great one that how many babys are effected each year by methadone fumes ........ So maybe long after these kids are born and the effects of any methadone have worn off they will still be eating 2nd hand fag smoke and 4x4 exhaust fumes
Its a tough life we all start it somewhere, just be thankful you did and no one screened you out.

And I suppose the vehicles that arent 4x4's dont pollute at all then rolleyes

5 Jun 2007

I just don’t get the relevance of alcoholics, smokers, bacon butty eaters and what ever other group anyone wishes to bring into this debate. (edit - and now even 4x4 drivers)
How much smokers and alcoholics cost the NHS is a different issue to the one at hand (unless you are writing a new agenda).
It has already been established that smokers would have to quit before being granted the privilege of receiving IVF.
I would hope (with the little faith I have in the powers that be) if they were aware someone was an alcoholic, they would be refused IVF also. I would support regular alcohol screening as part of the pre-selection process.
IVF is not treating an illness. It may be sought as the result of an illness, but, the inability or low chance of having a baby is not an illness, disease (chronic or acute), it’s not a broken bone or dislocated joint, it’s not a tumour or a haemorrhage, it’s not a stroke or a seizure… hopefully you get the drift by now of what I am saying here.
People everyday are denied life saving drugs and operations because they are too expensive/the patient lives in the wrong part of the country/ the hospital department has over spent. What rights do these people have? (Answer – none!). So I fail to see where the rights of two methadone addicts come into this equation in relation to having a baby (and that is not just because they are ‘druggies’ ,as people keep saying, or because of what some of you may believe my opinion is of methadone addicts - so please don’t assume you know my opinions on that).
IVF is a scientific advancement – something that can be done.
Laser eye correction is that too – but you don’t get that as standard NHS treatment do you?
FFS, how many people can’t even get a dentist in this country?
It is not a right to have a baby and it is not a right to have IVF – it is an expensive gift! And I would expect the people offering that gift (at the expense of someone somewhere else in the NHS who can’t have their treatment because of budget issues) to be highly selective about who they give it to.
Make smokers quit…
Make methadone addicts quit… (which is not a fairy tale – enough of them do manage it to prove it can be done)
Make drinkers quit…
Make people jump through hoops of fire with a fucking angry lion on the other side (if it is going to benefit the wellbeing of the child they want to have)
If we (society) have the choice to help to make a life, surely we have to put the wellbeing of that life first above anything else. And if that means choosing a different womb to start it in – then so be it.
If people want a baby so bad and we (as a society) can offer them a chance that nature denied them – is it really that much to ask them to do detox so the baby doesn't have to?

5 Jun 2007

Quote by flower411
There used to be something called "common sense"
It is outdated and generally frowned upon by the "New Labour" type intellectuals. But there are some people who still think that "commom sense" will prevail in the long run.
In a "common sense" world NO drug addict would be given tax payer funded help to give birth.
But "common sense" has so much to do with reality and so little to do with proving a point that the clever intellectuals will always be able to talk their way round to convincing people that "common sense" is an unreasonable way of looking at the world .
So carry on ... because no matter how many arguments you care to put forward "common sense " will prevail in the long run !!
It may take time

flower? it used to be 'Common sense' that the world was flat!
we don't believe that anymore, do we?
the thing about common sense is that it's exactly that. common? it doesn't always apply. nor is it so entirely or easily accurate?
your argument there makes no sense whatsoever, cos it is clearly demonstrably wrong?
neil x x x ;)

7 Jun 2007

Did anyone else hear the news today....
Yet another methadone addict was sent down yesturday for killing their 3mth old baby by giving it methadone - to settle the child. sad

The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies. They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

Yeah right! rolleyes

7 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Did anyone else hear the news today....
Yet another methadone addict was sent down yesturday for killing their 3mth old baby by giving it methadone - to settle the child.
The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies. They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

Yeah right! rolleyes

Yes mate, shit happens all around us everyday, and the same thing may well happen to the people that have been discussed in this thread.
Was it legal meth or street meth?
Its bound to happen, somewhere at sometime, because of extreme circumstances of such people. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. Collateral damage as some might say.
But it's an observation, some more facts etc, not a new argument.
I'm sure there's examples of supposedly cured types performing equally nasty things on other people. Google here we come.
But it won't greatly influence my opinion. I still think we have a reasonably good system. There are still many people benefitting from various programmes, even if there are horror stories, like the one you read about.

Might be worth reading, Its just yet another viewpoint.

7 Jun 2007

Quote by flower411
But it won't greatly influence my opinion. I still think we have a reasonably good system. There are still many people benefitting from various programmes, even if there are horror stories, like the one you read about.

Yeah and the Earth is flat !!
Jeez how did that one get back into the thread?

7 Jun 2007

Interesting how some demand respect for their veiws without giving the same privaledge to others.
kiss

Good debate. Over and out. x

8 Jun 2007

Quote by little gem
Interesting how some demand respect for their veiws without giving the same privaledge to others.

Good debate. Over and out. x

Quite.

8 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Did anyone else hear the news today....
Yet another methadone addict was sent down yesturday for killing their 3mth old baby by giving it methadone - to settle the child.
The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies. They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

Yeah right! rolleyes

Yes mate, shit happens all around us everyday, and the same thing may well happen to the people that have been discussed in this thread.
...

If you are aware that 'shit happens', I struggle to see how you can make your claim that the support is out there.
Of course there are people benefiting from support programmes, but it is a sad ‘fact’ that fully supported rehab programmes are far and few between.
Of course there are other support services – all equally stretched.
To claim that we have the resources to support the IVF parents and they (the support services) will do what needs to be done is an unsupported statement. Why will these children be any more supported than the ones that the system has failed?
There are enough facts out there to show that the support services are already over stretched and can’t give the level of support needed by some of the most venerable people… hence… yes, shit does happen.

8 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady
Did anyone else hear the news today....
Yet another methadone addict was sent down yesturday for killing their 3mth old baby by giving it methadone - to settle the child.
The support has already been in existance as the parents are in a rehab programme and will continue with it in consultation with the other professional bodies. They are all sharing in the ownership of the problem. This probably means having to support a family throughout just about everything they need. But its doable. We have the resources, and will develop anything else needed by submitting to the demands of such a challenge.

Yeah right! rolleyes

Yes mate, shit happens all around us everyday, and the same thing may well happen to the people that have been discussed in this thread.
...

If you are aware that 'shit happens', I struggle to see how you can make your claim that the support is out there.
Of course there are people benefiting from support programmes, but it is a sad ‘fact’ that fully supported rehab programmes are far and few between.
Of course there are other support services – all equally stretched.
To claim that we have the resources to support the IVF parents and they (the support services) will do what needs to be done is an unsupported statement. Why will these children be any more supported than the ones that the system has failed?
There are enough facts out there to show that the support services are already over stretched and can’t give the level of support needed by some of the most venerable people… hence… yes, shit does happen.
Most of know that such resources are limited, which is why the simple equation of druggie + nine months in detox/rehab = responsible citizen, is unlikely at best.
Appealing for a guarantee. This has cropped up throughout the debate. "As long as we can guarantee the kids will be okay, we'll go along with this".
The whole point of their rehab process is only to take them back to the edge of 'normal' life and see if they can join the world again. Once they have, they simply have the same set of risks and options as everyone else in life. So asking for a guarantee is redundant.
As I said before, if they were denied help and left to their own devices, it could have resulted in the return to illegal usage and the possibility of kids born under those conditions.
This way you at least have a family that can be reached and monitored through the available resources. Its not much and it will be a bit gritty to say the least. But it makes a difference for some people and its something to fall back on if one needs it.
Most people can see that there is some value in having resources to deal with such people. They would not want to see total ignorance and neglect.
By the way did you read any of the web site I linked to?

8 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
Most of know that such resources are limited, which is why the simple equation of druggie + nine months in detox/rehab = responsible citizen, is unlikely at best.
Appealing for a guarantee. This has cropped up throughout the debate. "As long as we can guarantee the kids will be okay, we'll go along with this".

I don't make that claim dunno

And if others do - I disagree with them too.
The point you keep appearing to make which I strongly disagree with is that the support network is there and is resourced - when it so obviously is under funded and short of the resources it needs.
It is as if you were saying "the NHS and social services have all the funds and resources they need". It is easy to type, nice to imagine, but simply not true.

Quote by duncanlondon
As I said before, if they were denied help and left to their own devices, it could have resulted in the return to illegal usage and the possibility of kids born under those conditions.
This way you at least have a family that can be reached and monitored through the available resources.

I still don't get this point - are you saying you support the IVF because you believe not giving them IVF may have resulted in them going back onto heroin? confused

8 Jun 2007

Quote by PoloLady

Most of know that such resources are limited, which is why the simple equation of druggie + nine months in detox/rehab = responsible citizen, is unlikely at best.
Appealing for a guarantee. This has cropped up throughout the debate. "As long as we can guarantee the kids will be okay, we'll go along with this".

I don't make that claim dunno

And if others do - I disagree with them too.
The point you keep appearing to make which I strongly disagree with is that the support network is there and is resourced - when it so obviously is under funded and short of the resources it needs.
It is as if you were saying "the NHS and social services have all the funds and resources they need". It is easy to type, nice to imagine, but simply not true.

Quote by duncanlondon
As I said before, if they were denied help and left to their own devices, it could have resulted in the return to illegal usage and the possibility of kids born under those conditions.
This way you at least have a family that can be reached and monitored through the available resources.

I still don't get this point - are you saying you support the IVF because you believe not giving them IVF may have resulted in them going back onto heroin? confused

The support is there IF you use it genuinely. So much is wasted by feckless no hopers who think they are ready to sort themselves out. In this case I think the couple have mafde a major effort and are convincingly getting somewhere.
The NHS is a massive beast that is hard to shove about, but it does deliver what's needed to those who will benefit from it. Often only in the nick of time.
Way back at the start of the debate, I said that I believed they were given IVF to prevent the possibility of them conceiving under heroin, and also probably dissapearing back into the old lifestyle. That this decision was brought about by the collective expertise of the professionals involved. The couple had probably qualified as being able to receive it, as they appear to have been on a lengthy rehab programme. So from a clincial point, all was above board and ready to do.
There's probably dozens of people who have had medications for psychiatric problems and long term illnesses, even cancer, who have IVF treatments after their period of 'healing'. So it doesn't surprise me that this decision was quite acceptable to the profession.

8 Jun 2007

Quote by duncanlondon
The support is there IF you use it genuinely. So much is wasted by feckless no hopers who think they are ready to sort themselves out. In this case I think the couple have mafde a major effort and are convincingly getting somewhere.
The NHS is a massive beast that is hard to shove about, but it does deliver what's needed to those who will benefit from it. Often only in the nick of time.

I'm sorry Duncan but how you you claim this? Where's the evidence?
So are you saying Mrs Kiss's chemo drugs were delayed because the PCT wasn't willing to fund them was a very bad dream?
There is case after case of people not getting the support they need, whether it's drug addiction related or otherwise.
I've not posted in this thread so far but I couldnt let that one go!

8 Jun 2007

Quote by Kiss
The support is there IF you use it genuinely. So much is wasted by feckless no hopers who think they are ready to sort themselves out. In this case I think the couple have mafde a major effort and are convincingly getting somewhere.
The NHS is a massive beast that is hard to shove about, but it does deliver what's needed to those who will benefit from it. Often only in the nick of time.

I'm sorry Duncan but how you you claim this? Where's the evidence?
So are you saying Mrs Kiss's chemo drugs were delayed because the PCT wasn't willing to fund them was a very bad dream?
There is case after case of people not getting the support they need, whether it's drug addiction related or otherwise.
I've not posted in this thread so far but I couldnt let that one go!
But she did get them , albeit delayed ?

8 Jun 2007

Just type "NHS Fails" into google and you will be able to read page after page about each particular group of patients the NHS IS failing to give adequate support to at this moment in time.

8 Jun 2007

A year ago, we called on Social Services to help us with a matter before it came to the stage where it was beyond help. They did not have the resources to help us.
As with Kiss, I had to make a point on this one.

9 Jun 2007

This whole issue rasied sums why in my viewpoint the World will enter some sort of War within the next 20years.
What is most important the rights of the many against the rights of the person ?
This question created what is now known as:
The Target Driven Society.
The creator & Nobel Winner Prof. John Nash belived that all Humans are naturally selfish. So the only way to stop society / civilisation (if you want to call it this?, that's another question..) going to HELL was to force people to reach targets.
These targets would force the selfish into working for the common good? Small sections of a larger manchine, if you like.
Then if you pass the target or percentage then you get a reward. As ALL Humans are selfish then they work for the reward that they get.
Ohh by the way Prof. John Nash was going MAD at the time of his ideas about the nature of the Human Race.
He even began to think that any Man wearing a Red Tie was a Soviet Spy.
Now Prof. John Nash is better & is trying to stop the Targets that we all work towrds..!!
Prof. John Nash has said that unless this is stoped it will end Humanity. Either by people going Mad or Ultimate War Nuclear style.
Humans are not targets.
This is why things like this happen. People for themselves. It was seen as gospel that Humans where selfish.. so Humans HAVE become this.
Life becoming Art.
We are doomed to fail this is life.
I just want it to be quick & painless. No me even seeing the Mushroom Cloud just me eating my Toast then... nothing.
Ohh Liverpool need to win the League before this so that Manchester United or that lot Chelsea will never get another shot.
I'll be in Heaven well Happy, laughing at the lot of them for ever & ever.
"Who was the last & final club to win the league..come on you all know this one..come on".
I'd be like that forever & forver & forever. All the 'good' Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea & Everton Fans would get the first one way to HELL.
So what side are you on?
The Collective or Yourself?
Am still not sure.. it's one of them. Seeing a person getting beaten up the street. Do you step-in or do you walk on by?

9 Jun 2007

Wow :shock:

Quote by Wunderhorse
This whole issue rasied sums why in my viewpoint the World will enter some sort of War within the next 20years.
Seems a fair ol bet by any standards...
What is most important the rights of the many against the rights of the person ?
Mm, in a democratic way I'd say yes..
This question created what is now known as:
The Target Driven Society.
The creator & Nobel Winner Prof. John Nash belived that all Humans are naturally selfish. So the only way to stop society / civilisation (if you want to call it this?, that's another question..) going to HELL was to force people to reach targets.
These targets would force the selfish into working for the common good? Small sections of a larger manchine, if you like.
Then if you pass the target or percentage then you get a reward. As ALL Humans are selfish then they work for the reward that they get.
Ohh by the way Prof. John Nash was going MAD at the time of his ideas about the nature of the Human Race.
He even began to think that any Man wearing a Red Tie was a Soviet Spy.
Now Prof. John Nash is better & is trying to stop the Targets that we all work towrds..!!
Prof. John Nash has said that unless this is stoped it will end Humanity. Either by people going Mad or Ultimate War Nuclear style.
Humans are not targets.
This is why things like this happen. People for themselves. It was seen as gospel that Humans where selfish.. so Humans HAVE become this.
Life becoming Art.
We are doomed to fail this is life.
Some far quicker than others...
I just want it to be quick & painless. No me even seeing the Mushroom Cloud just me eating my Toast then... nothing.

No marmite??
Ohh Liverpool need to win the League before this so that Manchester United or that lot Chelsea will never get another shot.
I'll be in Heaven well Happy, laughing at the lot of them for ever & ever.
Blimy... Easy pleased lol....
"Who was the last & final club to win the league..come on you all know this one..come on".
I'd be like that forever & forver & forever. All the 'good' Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea & Everton Fans would get the first one way to HELL.
So what side are you on?
My side...
The Collective or Yourself?
Am still not sure.. it's one of them. Seeing a person getting beaten up the street. Do you step-in or do you walk on by?]
Step in... Always have and till I can't always will!